The right of withdrawal in the treaty of Lison: A game theoretic reflection on different decision processes in the EU
The ways of decision making within the EU have significantly changed in the last decades: the rule of unanimity has been more and more substituted by majority voting in order to speed up decision-making processes in a Union of 27 heterogeneous member states. A third possibility is now offered by the Lisbon Treaty including a constitutional right of withdrawal: A member state encountering a loss in its benefits caused by a decision made by majority voting may now demand compensating transfers by using the right of withdrawal: It might threaten to leave the EU if the compensation is denied. Are member states becoming as powerful as they are under the rule of unanimity because they use the right of withdrawal as a threat point? Using a game theoretic approach we show that normally compensating transfers will be lower under majority decisions with exit option compared to decisions requiring unanimity; under certain conditions however transfers could also be as high as in the case of unanimity. In practise, the EU will offer compensating transfers depending on how credible a member state threatens to leave the Union. By using cheap talk a member state may increase the credibility of its outside option and therefore receive higher transfers.
|Date of creation:||2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Platz der Göttinger Sieben 3, 37073 Göttingen|
Web page: http://www.cege.wiso.uni-goettingen.de/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Euler, Markus, 2005. "EU-Finanzverhandlungen gescheitert: Chance zum Nachdenken," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW – German National Library of Economics / Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 85(7), pages 455-459.
- Joseph Farrell & Matthew Rabin, 1996. "Cheap Talk," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 103-118, Summer.
- Fellner, Gerlinde & Guth, Werner, 2003. "What limits escalation?--Varying threat power in an ultimatum experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 53-60, July.
- Abhinay Muthoo, 2000. "A Non-technical Introduction to Bargaining Theory," World Economics, World Economics, Economic & Financial Publishing, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 1(2), pages 145-166, April.
- Cornelius Bähr, 2008.
"How does Sub-National Autonomy Affect the Effectiveness of Structural Funds?,"
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 3-18, 02.
- Cornelius Baehr, 2006. "How Does Sub-National Autonomy Affect the Effectiveness of Structural Funds?," ERSA conference papers ersa06p470, European Regional Science Association.
- Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
- Joseph Farrell and Robert Gibbons., 1988.
"Cheap Talk Can Matter in Bargaining,"
Economics Working Papers
8863, University of California at Berkeley.
- Robert Gibbons & Joseph Farrell, 1988. "Cheap Talk Can Matter in Bargaining," Working papers 482, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Farrell, Joseph & Gibbons, Robert, 1988. "Cheap Talk Can Matter in Bargaining," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3qz786xq, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Anders Wivel, 2005. "The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States: Interests, Identity and the Development of the EU as a Security Actor," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 393-412, 06.
- Ville Kaitila, 2004. "Convergence of real GDP per capita in the EU15. How do the Accession Countries fit in?," Economics Working Papers 025, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes.
- Pamela Schmitt, 2004. "On Perceptions of Fairness: The Role of Valuations, Outside Options, and Information in Ultimatum Bargaining Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 49-73, February.
- Croson, Rachel & Boles, Terry & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2003. "Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 143-159, June.
- Buchanan, James M & Faith, Roger L, 1987. "Secession and the Limits of Taxation: Toward a Theory of Internal Exit," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 1023-1031, December.
- Farvaque, Etienne, 2000. "Breaking-up a nation, from the inside," ZEI Working Papers B 20-2000, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
- Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2004. "Economic determinants of free trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 29-63, October.
- Knez Marc J. & Camerer Colin F., 1995. "Outside Options and Social Comparison in Three-Player Ultimatum Game Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 65-94, July.
- Stahl, Dale O. & Haruvy, Ernan, 2008. "Subgame perfection in ultimatum bargaining trees," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 292-307, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:cegedp:77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.